Aurora 4x
C# Aurora => C# Bureau of Design => Topic started by: Borealis4x on May 17, 2020, 03:11:48 PM
-
Not really a ship design, but since ground force design works the same way I'd think they go here. I've been using SpaceMaster to tinker with ground units and wanted to know what you think of this first effort. I've been wanting to make a unit like this ever since we learnt of the new Ground Unit Designer.
I'm trying to create a small company-sized formation of elite Power Armored marines that can fit in a single troop compartment. I plan to put them in all military ships over 90,000 tons to give them boarding and anti-boarding capabilities as well as a solid away team that can call down supporting fire from the mothership. Outside the fleet they'd serve as my go-to unit for extra-atmosphere ground combat.
Here are the stats for the individual Marine units. All Marines have the same capabilities:
Marine
Transport Size (tons) 6 Cost 18.54 Armour 15.0 Hit Points 12
Annual Maintenance Cost 2.3 Resupply Cost 1.3
Improved Personal Weapons: Shots 1 Penetration 10 Damage 8
Advanced Genetic Enhancement
Boarding Combat
Desert Warfare
Extreme Pressure Combat
Extreme Temperature Combat
High Gravity Combat
Jungle Warfare
Low Gravity Combat
Mountain Warfare
Heavy Marine
Transport Size (tons) 12 Cost 49.44 Armour 20 Hit Points 20
Annual Maintenance Cost 6.2 Resupply Cost 6
Crew-Served Anti-Personnel: Shots 6 Penetration 8 Damage 8
Marine HQ
Transport Size (tons) 10 Cost 61.8 Armour 15.0 Hit Points 12
Annual Maintenance Cost 7.7 Resupply Cost 0
Headquarters: Capacity 1,000
Marine Fire Director
Transport Size (tons) 60 Cost 185.39 Armour 15.0 Hit Points 12
Annual Maintenance Cost 23 Resupply Cost 0
Forward Fire Direction:
Now the Marine Company:
Marine Company
Transport Size: 1,000 tons
Build Cost: 3,429.9 BP
1x Marine HQ
105x Marine
1x Marine Fire Director
25x Heavy Marine
I hope they also add Training Level to the Unit Designer in the future so my Marines are more than just infantry with fancy equipment.
-
these will take forever to train... I made the mistake of making a similarly expensive unit, and its been clogging up my training facilities for a long time
-
these will take forever to train... I made the mistake of making a similarly expensive unit, and its been clogging up my training facilities for a long time
This is why I have multiple tiers of infantry - Light Infantry tend to fill up garrisons or other non-critical combat positions, standard infantry is the backbone of any assault and are trained to fight on exo-planets but not specialized to any terrain, rangers who are standard infantry with terrain training and tend to be much less in numbers but fill the role of attack infantry and finally space marines who have boarding, extreme pressure and low gravity training and are in very small units for boarding ops.
The fact that capabilities are cumulative % modifiers makes the cost go up a lot and forces you to specialize troops.
-
This isn't related, but how do I fire on a population/planetside ground force from beam ships in orbit of a planet? I target them in ship combat and press open fire fc but nothing happens.
-
This isn't related, but how do I fire on a population/planetside ground force from beam ships in orbit of a planet? I target them in ship combat and press open fire fc but nothing happens.
This should happen, I do it like that. Does your FC become orange?
-
Yeah it turns orange, nothing happens. 1.9.5, I think.
-
Yeah it turns orange, nothing happens. 1.9.5, I think.
are your weapons assigned to the FC?
you might also just be missing if they are too well fortified.
-
Yeah it turns orange, nothing happens. 1.9.5, I think.
If you drag and drop their ground forces to your FC with assigned wepons and press open fire, it should certainly work. Do you also keep track of event log?
-
To the OP;
They seem tough and fine but if I don't miss anything, you should make HQ and FF units as non-combat class to lower the probability of they get hit. Also to me, 1x HQ unit is way too risky versus one unfortunate rng.
-
I thought genetic modification doesn't work yet?
-
I thought genetic modification doesn't work yet?
Custom species doesn't work yet. Super-soldier infantry works.
-
IIRC, there is no non-RP reason to duplicate HQ elements to lower chance of beheading strike in current (1.9.5) version, because there will be no battle-replacement commander, and any other element will play the same role of diverting enemy fire from your HQ, and battle elemets will do it better, and they will do damage at the same time, in contrast to spare HQ. In other words, probabilities of any commander death from enemy fire, drop fail or accident are all independent from numbers of HQ elements in their formations. The only case where you can use spare HQ effectively during local combat - is the case, when you have a destroyed HQ, have a spare HQ in the same formation, and have no RP rule to not appoint another commander of the proper rank just during the same local combat. That will be little cheating, though.
And I'd prefer to have some logistical elements in my drop-companies - they go out of ammo quite promptly, fighting with usual battalion-size garrisons, and henceforth cannot use their better training effectively.
As for specialized boarding troops - I haven't tested it yet, but I think they have to be lighter: improved weapons make them larger by quarter (so less elements in the company), while their increased armour-piersing being most likely useless against very lightly armoured enemy crews.
-
Isn't the chance of your commander dying in combat is lower with multiple hqs?
-
And in addittion to that, how can a weaponless class do damage?
-
No, the chance of your commander dying in combat is not lower with multiple hqs.
Why it can be that? This chance is determined by the size of HQ element, this commander is on, divided by overall size of formation being under fire. Another HQ element isn't some special fire-bait for HQ-hunters, because there are no such hunters in this version of Aurora, so any spare HQ is worse fire-bait, than any combat element of the same size. And those combat elements do damage in the same time, while spare HQ just do nothing exept roleplaying.
-
No, the chance of your commander dying in combat is not lower with multiple hqs.
Why it can be that? This chance is determined by the size of HQ element, this commander is on, divided by overall size of formation being under fire. Another HQ element isn't some special fire-bait for HQ-hunters, because there are no such hunters in this version of Aurora, so any spare HQ is worse fire-bait, than any combat element of the same size. And those combat elements do damage in the same time, while spare HQ just do nothing exept roleplaying.
You need to see the forest for the trees...
Having 2 HQ elements within the same formation means that if one of them is lost, they don't drop out of the command chain, the other one "steps in" and "takes command". It is not about being bait, it is about redundancy. So they do more than "just roleplaying" they are actually quite "gamey" versus "roleplay".
-
No, the chance of your commander dying in combat is not lower with multiple hqs.
Why it can be that? This chance is determined by the size of HQ element, this commander is on, divided by overall size of formation being under fire. Another HQ element isn't some special fire-bait for HQ-hunters, because there are no such hunters in this version of Aurora, so any spare HQ is worse fire-bait, than any combat element of the same size. And those combat elements do damage in the same time, while spare HQ just do nothing exept roleplaying.
I beg to differ. The more HQ unit you have, less possible an HQ command chain gets broken due to being wiped out. Making the HQ command non-combat class (if it doesn't have any kind of weapon) helps a lot. If you make two slots HQ unit one of them being bombardment weapons, you may put your HQ as a support unit for one of the FL units.
I tried both and got much bettet results than just putting one HQ or putting them in front lines.
-
If you mean that bonuses of superior commanders will apply, if there is still non-destroyed HQ in the chain - no, IIRC they will not. Bonuses of superior commanders applied only if there is uninterrupted chain of commanders (with proper ranks), not HQs only.
Yes, as I wrote above, if you have no RP rule to not teleportate commanders from some other place inside ongoing combat to replace killed officer - well, yes, then you have an option to replace killed commander effectively. But it's exploit, because IRL in this case replacement commander must be inferior-rank commander from the same formation, not a new-assigned commander of the same rank as just killed one was. And in Aurora you cannot assign inferior-rank commander in the place of their killed superior commander and rely on their bonuses and bonus-transmission, because this new commander must have proper rank, not a lower one, to apply their bonuses and bonus-transmission. There is no temporary promotion mechanism in this version of Aurora (IIRC, it was sugested, but I don't know if Steve have a plan to implement it), so no "step in", if you cannot manually find, promote and reassign one of subordinates, that have proper Ground Combat Command rating (I think it will be rare case: such commanders normally have their promotions at non-combat time, not awaiting their superior KIA to replace them). So, exploit or suffer.
-
Having 2 HQ elements within the same formation means that if one of them is lost, they don't drop out of the command chain, the other one "steps in" and "takes command". It is not about being bait, it is about redundancy. So they do more than "just roleplaying" they are actually quite "gamey" versus "roleplay".
If you mean that bonuses of superior commanders will apply, if there is still non-destroyed HQ in the chain - no, their will not. Bonuses of superior commanders applied only if there is uninterrupted chain of commanders (with proper ranks), not HQs only.
Yes, as I wrote above, if you have no RP rule to not teleportate commanders from some other place inside ongoing combat to replace killed officer - well, yes, then you have an option to replace killed commander effectively. But it's exploit, because IRL in this case replacement commander must be inferior-rank commander from the same formation, not a new-assigned commander of the same rank as just killed one was. And in Aurora you cannot assign inferior-rank commander in the place of their killed superior commander and rely on their bonuses and bonus-transmission, because this new commander must have proper rank, not a lower one, to apply their bonuses and bonus-transmission. There is no temporary promotion mechanism in this version of Aurora (IIRC, it was sugested, but I don't know if Steve have a plan to implement it), so no "step in", if you cannot manually find, promote and reassign one of subordinates, that have proper Ground Combat Command rating (I think it will be rare case: such commanders normally have their promotions at non-combat time, not awaiting their superior KIA to replace them). So, exploit or suffer.
It seems to me you're confusing a HQ element with a HQ formation. There is no need to put say 2x 100k HQ formation to a 100k army (though it would have very secure command chain it's redundant due to waste of tonnage) But to a HQ formation, when you you put, say 20x HQ element that counts as one HQ command with one commander but it has 20x HP thus it's not possible to knock that commander off the chain unless you wipe out all HQ elements.
-
That's new to me that it's possible to put 20x HQ element that counts as one HQ command.
I think it's obvious exploit even if it will work, because there will be absulutely no need to research large HQs - such stacks will be much more redundant, being practically free in terms of research points.
-
Steve:
In addition, if the largest HQ in a formation has a rating less than the formation size, the effectiveness of the formation commander's bonuses will be reduced by (HQ rating / formation size).
-
That's new to me that it's possible to put 20x HQ element that counts as one HQ command.
I think it's obvious exploit even if it will work, because there will be absulutely no need to research large HQs - such stacks will be much more redundant, being practically free in terms of research points.
Problem is, when you add more HQ elements to a HQ formation, the elements beyond one don't contribute to the HQ limit. That's why you have to research upper limits. The elements beyond one are only good for making HQ formation bigger HP. Think of it as one match against ten matches. I personally use between 10 and 20 HQ elements when I design a HQ formation.
-
If you mean that bonuses of superior commanders will apply, if there is still non-destroyed HQ in the chain - no, IIRC they will not. Bonuses of superior commanders applied only if there is uninterrupted chain of commanders (with proper ranks), not HQs only.
Ok let's see if this can be explained, assume:
TOE:
x1 Division - 100k
x4 Battalion - 20k
x12 Company - 5k
Every HQ unit will have a ground commander assigned to it. Every commander will be the lowest rank possible for the HQ rating needed. Typical HQ outlay would be as follows:
x1 Division HQ with let's call it a General as commander
x4 Battalion HQ each with a Lieutenant Colonel as a commander
x12 Company HQ's each with a Captain as a commander
Now if we were to add another HQ to each of those elements, and replicate the ranks, the chain of command is maintained if any single HQ unit is lost, and thus their commander is lost, there is a "spare". It gets tricky if there can be an overlap at any level as for a commander bonus to "filter down" it requires uninterrupted descending rank chain. So if at Battalion there were Colonels and a Colonel was the "spare" Division commander, then their bonuses would not filter down.
To break it down to elements an example would be:
1st to 12th Motorized Rifle Company:
HQ -5000 cap Primary Captain
HQ -5000 cap "Spare" Captain (Possibly a Commissar)
5 Log Infantry
90 PW Infantry
5 CAP Infantry
5 LAV Infantry
20 LV w HCAP Transports
This is in essence the same theory/application of having a secondary bridge on a ship, so that if the main bridge is hit there is still command structure and control in place.
-
Problem is, when you add more HQ elements to a HQ formation, the elements beyond one don't contribute to the HQ limit. That's why you have to research upper limits. The elements beyond one are only good for making HQ formation bigger HP. Think of it as one match against ten matches. I personally use between 10 and 20 HQ elements when I design a HQ formation.
Well, now I understand you.
That's obviously an exploit, even if it works as you wish.
-
Problem is, when you add more HQ elements to a HQ formation, the elements beyond one don't contribute to the HQ limit. That's why you have to research upper limits. The elements beyond one are only good for making HQ formation bigger HP. Think of it as one match against ten matches. I personally use between 10 and 20 HQ elements when I design a HQ formation.
Well, now I understand you.
That's obviously an exploit, even if it works as you wish.
Why does it have to be an exploit? If you want more hard-to-kill armored anti-tank brigade you put more anti-tanks in it. It's the same with HQs. It doesn't gift you more command limits, its just a trade-off between tonnage and HQ unit health.
-
HQ -5000 cap Primary Captain
HQ -5000 cap "Spare" Captain (Possibly a Commissar)
If it's about some new game mechanics for Aurora, that's a thing I cannot do!
In the current version there are no spare commanders, no mechanism to assign 2 different commanders of the same rank for one formation, nor some common replacement commander of proper (the same or higher) rank.
If it's about some RP rule to have spare HQs with spare commanders, to manually replace killed commanders to re-establish effective command chain... well, thats not a question of just filtering superior commanders' bonuses downchain, it's some more.
So I don't understand what you have suggested.
-
If a formation does not have any HQ elements within in it, the chain of command is broken. If a formation does not have a Commander of less rank than the unit above it and more rank than the unit below it the chain of command is broken. A formation without a HQ element cannot have any units under it and confer no commander bonuses at all, even to itself. Commander death is not related directly to HQ element health. But losing your one and only HQ is the same thing mechanically as commander death/removal for that formation and all formations it "feeds" with bonuses.
If an officer is commanding a formation that is larger than his command rating, the effectiveness of his other bonuses will be reduced by (command rating / formation size). For example, an officer with a 20% defence bonus and a command rating of 5000 is commanding a regiment with a size of 7000. The defence bonus is reduced to 14.3%. In addition, if the largest HQ in a formation has a rating less than the formation size, the effectiveness of the formation commander's bonuses will be reduced by (HQ rating / formation size). These penalties (command rating and HQ rating) are cumulative. Note that if all HQ capacity in a formation is eliminated, no commander bonuses will apply.
-
Commander death is not related directly to HQ element health.
Steve:
If an HQ unit is lost, there is a chance the formation commander is killed based on (1/Number of HQ units), which is an automatic kill result if only one HQ exists
But I just don't understand how it was connnected with your previous post I answered.
-
Why does it have to be an exploit? If you want more hard-to-kill armored anti-tank brigade you put more anti-tanks in it. It's the same with HQs. It doesn't gift you more command limits, its just a trade-off between tonnage and HQ unit health.
There are 3 possibilities:
1) You need uninterrupted chain of proper commanders with proper HQ limits (that is - max of HQ elements) to apply superior commanders' bonuses downchain effectively, the same as with Naval Admin Commands and formation bounuses.
In this case spare HQs do very little (if any). If main HQ is destroyed (if I understand your weighing principle - that will be 1/2 chance when HQ formation is hit with some deadly enough weapon) - you'll have 1/11 to 1/22 chance of commander's KIA, instead of 1/1 (100%) chance if there was no spare HQ. But you'll have then only ~1/10 of their bonus applied to the formation and downchain. And every time HQ formation is hit and spare HQ is destroyed (the same 1/2 chance when HQ formation is hit with the same deadly weapon) - you'll have the same chance that commander is KIA, because game mechanics accounts HQ elements as equiprobable ones in terms of commander location, independently of HQ element's limit.
This measure cannot decrease a chance of main HQ being hit in overall combat, because this chance is set by element sizes. So it cannot decrease a chance of knocking-out commander's bonuses effectively (in the best case - it will keep 1/10 of them).
2) You need uninterrupted chain of proper commanders with proper HQ stacks (that is - sum of HQ elements) to apply superior commanders' bonuses downchain effectively.
I know no evidence that's how Aurora works with command chain.
3) You need uninterrupted chain of proper commanders with any HQ element each (that is - non-zero quantity of HQ elements in formation) to apply superior commanders' bonuses downchain effectively.
In this case you have to add midget "spare HQ" (HQ capacity is 1, all cost are 0) to double not only the chance your commander will survive HQ formation hit (that's quite plausible - it's adding command shelters), but also to double their chances to apply superior bonuses effectively. Too little cost, no RP plausibility.
-
Why does it have to be an exploit? If you want more hard-to-kill armored anti-tank brigade you put more anti-tanks in it. It's the same with HQs. It doesn't gift you more command limits, its just a trade-off between tonnage and HQ unit health.
There are 3 possibilities:
1) You need uninterrupted chain of proper commanders with proper HQ limits (that is - max of HQ elements) to apply superior commanders' bonuses downchain effectively, the same as with Naval Admin Commands and formation bounuses.
In this case spare HQs do very little (if any). If main HQ is destroyed (if I understand your weighing principle - that will be 1/2 chance when HQ formation is hit with some deadly enough weapon) - you'll have 1/11 to 1/22 chance of commander's KIA, instead of 1/1 (100%) chance if there was no spare HQ. But you'll have then only ~1/10 of their bonus applied to the formation and downchain. And every time HQ formation is hit and spare HQ is destroyed (the same 1/2 chance when HQ formation is hit with the same deadly weapon) - you'll have the same chance that commander is KIA, because game mechanics accounts HQ elements as equiprobable ones in terms of commander location, independently of HQ element's limit.
This measure cannot decrease a chance of main HQ being hit in overall combat, because this chance is set by element sizes. So it cannot decrease a chance of knocking-out commander's bonuses effectively (in the best case - it will keep 1/10 of them).
Why will you have 1/10th bonus after losing a redundant HQ unit? Either the commander is taken out and you completely lose the bonus, or the commander isn't taken out and your identical backup HQ means they continue to function at 100% effectiveness.
Some bits of your post mention tiny secondary command posts, which would work as badly as you describe here, but I'm not sure why anyone would be talking about that?
-
Why will you have 1/10th bonus after losing a redundant HQ unit? Either the commander is taken out and you completely lose the bonus, or the commander isn't taken out and your identical backup HQ means they continue to function at 100% effectiveness.
Some bits of your post mention tiny secondary command posts, which would work as badly as you describe here, but I'm not sure why anyone would be talking about that?
It was my answer to this post:
It seems to me you're confusing a HQ element with a HQ formation. There is no need to put say 2x 100k HQ formation to a 100k army (though it would have very secure command chain it's redundant due to waste of tonnage) But to a HQ formation, when you you put, say 20x HQ element that counts as one HQ command with one commander but it has 20x HP thus it's not possible to knock that commander off the chain unless you wipe out all HQ elements.
This cannot be a suggestion to add 20x full-size HQ elements, it must be about 20x 1/20th-size elements, so was my "2)" point, and therefore my "3)" point as obvious ("gamey" as consiefe opposed to roleplay) minimax optimization.
-
Why will you have 1/10th bonus after losing a redundant HQ unit? Either the commander is taken out and you completely lose the bonus, or the commander isn't taken out and your identical backup HQ means they continue to function at 100% effectiveness.
Some bits of your post mention tiny secondary command posts, which would work as badly as you describe here, but I'm not sure why anyone would be talking about that?
It was my answer to this post:
It seems to me you're confusing a HQ element with a HQ formation. There is no need to put say 2x 100k HQ formation to a 100k army (though it would have very secure command chain it's redundant due to waste of tonnage) But to a HQ formation, when you you put, say 20x HQ element that counts as one HQ command with one commander but it has 20x HP thus it's not possible to knock that commander off the chain unless you wipe out all HQ elements.
This cannot be a suggestion to add 20x full-size HQ elements, it must be about 20x 1/20th-size elements, so was my "2)" point, and therefore my "3)" point as obvious ("gamey" as consiefe opposed to roleplay) minimax optimization.
Why, in fact, can it not be a suggestion to add 20x full-size HQ elements? I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it is.
-
Why, in fact, can it not be a suggestion to add 20x full-size HQ elements? I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it is.
Because, again, there was my addressee's words:
----
There is no need to put say 2x 100k HQ formation to a 100k army (though it would have very secure command chain it's redundant due to waste of tonnage)
----
-
Why, in fact, can it not be a suggestion to add 20x full-size HQ elements? I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it is.
Because, again, there was my addressee's words:
----
There is no need to put say 2x 100k HQ formation to a 100k army (though it would have very secure command chain it's redundant due to waste of tonnage)
----
Which supports your conclusion how?
Having two separate formations isn't particularly useful. Calling it out as a waste of tonnage seems odd, it's more that it just doesn't help at all, but there's certainly no need for it.
Having multiple HQ units within your HQ formations (and probably also every front-line formation) to provide some resilience if the HQ element draws fire is very useful.
EDIT: And in particular, it reduces the risk of your commanders dying and leaving you with your problem of not having on-site replacement officers, as well as reducing the risk of a formation losing all HQ units and breaking the chain that way.
-
Quick question: Does Ground Unit armor update automatically every time you research new armor tech?
-
Quick question: Does Ground Unit armor update automatically every time you research new armor tech?
Just for new-designed formation elements.
Formations, that have old template elements will be built with old techs.
-
Quick question: Does Ground Unit armor update automatically every time you research new armor tech?
Just for new-designed formation elements.
Formations, that have old template elements will be built with old techs.
So you have to delete and re-train entire armies just to give them new armor?
-
Why will you have 1/10th bonus after losing a redundant HQ unit? Either the commander is taken out and you completely lose the bonus, or the commander isn't taken out and your identical backup HQ means they continue to function at 100% effectiveness.
Some bits of your post mention tiny secondary command posts, which would work as badly as you describe here, but I'm not sure why anyone would be talking about that?
It was my answer to this post:
It seems to me you're confusing a HQ element with a HQ formation. There is no need to put say 2x 100k HQ formation to a 100k army (though it would have very secure command chain it's redundant due to waste of tonnage) But to a HQ formation, when you you put, say 20x HQ element that counts as one HQ command with one commander but it has 20x HP thus it's not possible to knock that commander off the chain unless you wipe out all HQ elements.
This cannot be a suggestion to add 20x full-size HQ elements, it must be about 20x 1/20th-size elements, so was my "2)" point, and therefore my "3)" point as obvious ("gamey" as consiefe opposed to roleplay) minimax optimization.
:) May the ground forces be with you! I'm sure you'll find out yourself.
-
So you have to delete and re-train entire armies just to give them new armor?
Yep.
It was some... vehemence in different suggestion threads about it. :)
-
Which supports your conclusion how?
Having two separate formations isn't particularly useful. Calling it out as a waste of tonnage seems odd, it's more that it just doesn't help at all
That's it, above all: I think consiefe was not opposing this obvious trash, so "formation" have to be a typo, it have to be "element" there - just as we discussed above that post (my starting replica was about elements too: "IIRC, there is no non-RP reason to duplicate HQ elements to lower chance of beheading strike"), and then consiefe answered writing "unit" instead of "element", and therefore no disbeleave in further typo - "formation" instead of "unit".
And if it was about 20x full-size HQ elements... well, that's obviously not an improvement:
Infantry HQ is 1% of their command limit size (10t for 1000t command limit).
So, 20x full-size HQ is 20% of overall combat force.
With the same principle in all command tiers you'll have 51.2% of tonnage to HQ elements only for 3-tier infantry-only force (regimental - that is plausible force to knock out fortified standart battalion-level mining colony garrison of the same tech level without heavy loot-cracking orbital fire support - thats what infantry drops are for, yep).
MV HQ is 4% to 8.8% of their command limit size, depending on secondary equipment.
So, 20x full-size MV HQ is 80 to 178% of overall combat force.
For army-level with MV HQs... you'll leave no tonnage for combat and logistical elements at all.
It's obviously not what consiefe talked about.
Having multiple HQ units within your HQ formations (and probably also every front-line formation) to provide some resilience if the HQ element draws fire is very useful.
EDIT: And in particular, it reduces the risk of your commanders dying and leaving you with your problem of not having on-site replacement officers, as well as reducing the risk of a formation losing all HQ units and breaking the chain that way.
Well...
I'll be recurrent.
1.
Adding full-size HQ spare element to your HQ formation (that is - doubling HQ formation size) is doubling the chance this HQ formation will be chosen as target. So, half the chance of KIA, but double chance of hit to get that half the chance. So no advantage at all.
2.
All this HQ size will be substructing from your drop force combat (+support and logistical) elements.
For infantry-only force it will be -1% per 1-level spare HQ, that's smth like statistical error.
For MV it will be -4 to -8.8%, and it's quite noticeable loss of combat elements, but if you have commander with several 20-30% of relevant bonuses - that's good for 1-level force, if it's effective measure to save this commander and their bonuses. Multi-level forces will be more questinable even if no "1." point.
-
That's it, above all: I think consiefe was not opposing this obvious trash, so "formation" have to be a typo, it have to be "element" there - just as we discussed above that post (my starting replica was about elements too: "IIRC, there is no non-RP reason to duplicate HQ elements to lower chance of beheading strike"), and then consiefe answered writing "unit" instead of "element", and therefore no disbeleave in further typo - "formation" instead of "unit".
And if it was about 20x full-size HQ elements... well, that's obviously not an improvement:
Infantry HQ is 1% of their command limit size (10t for 1000t command limit).
So, 20x full-size HQ is 20% of overall combat force.
With the same principle in all command tiers you'll have 51.2% of tonnage to HQ elements only for 3-tier infantry-only force (regimental - that is plausible force to knock out fortified standart battalion-level mining colony garrison of the same tech level without heavy loot-cracking orbital fire support - thats what infantry drops are for, yep).
MV HQ is 4% to 8.8% of their command limit size, depending on secondary equipment.
So, 20x full-size MV HQ is 80 to 178% of overall combat force.
For army-level with MV HQs... you'll leave no tonnage for combat and logistical elements at all.
It's obviously not what consiefe talked about.
Well, this is one of my first posts:
It seems to me you're confusing a HQ element with a HQ formation. There is no need to put say 2x 100k HQ formation to a 100k army (though it would have very secure command chain it's redundant due to waste of tonnage) But to a HQ formation, when you you put, say 20x HQ element that counts as one HQ command with one commander but it has 20x HP thus it's not possible to knock that commander off the chain unless you wipe out all HQ elements.
If I made any unintentional typo after this, sorry about that. But all along, a few people told you the same concept. We put more than one HQ elements in a HQ formation. Sometimes I refer element as unit I think. And I was believing you were confused about the element&formation thing. I think I was correct on that part.
This is Steve's test unit. I got the idea from here and started to think about it.
(http://www.pentarch.org/steve/Screenshots/GroundRules005.PNG)
And my HQ formations generally have logistics and somtimes bombardment in them besides HQ elements. I didn't get any problem with that, inversely they performed just fine. Only 2-3k additional weight has been never a problem either, especially with 10x 30k troop transports with orbital drop bays.
Edit: And did you try to alter the command limit value on element design screen?
-
But all along, a few people told you the same concept. We put more than one HQ elements in a HQ formation.
Arrrrrgh!!!!
I'm about the same thing from the start to the latest posts! - about adding HQ elements to our HQ formations!
That's not a point of disagreement, I have no idea why we are discussing this strange idea of having spare HQ formations as if I was about it.
The last discussion turn with Ulzgoroth was about the sizes of these HQ elements, and Ulzgoroth argued that you was about full-sized spare elements. But you was about 10x or 20x spare HQs for any 1-level combat force, and you described MV HQs also, not infantry only. That cannot be full-sized MV HQ, bacause there will be nearly no space for combat elements at all.
I have no clue why we are discussing spare formation HQs instead of it as if it's the only other option...
-
But all along, a few people told you the same concept. We put more than one HQ elements in a HQ formation.
Arrrrrgh!!!!
I'm about the same thing from the start to the latest posts! - about adding HQ elements to our HQ formations!
That's not a point of disagreement, I have no idea why we are discussing this strange idea of having spare HQ formations as if I was about it.
The last discussion turn with Ulzgoroth was about the sizes of these HQ elements, and Ulzgoroth argued that you was about full-sized spare elements. But you was about 10x or 20x spare HQs for any 1-level combat force, and you described MV HQs also, not infantry only. That cannot be full-sized MV HQ, bacause there will be nearly no space for combat elements at all.
I have no clue why we are discussing spare formation HQs instead of it as if it's the only other option...
But I WAS about extra HQ elements in a HQ formation. So Ulzgoroth was right about that. About HQs I gave this example: If you want your anti-tank formation to be more resistant against getting killed, you add more elements in it. I was referring it for the HQ formation only. I was not about putting HQs into other combat formations.
Whatever you make up your HQ formations with, be it Vehicle or Infantry type, I was telling you it's a good idea to put some extra of those HQ elements in it.
Edit:
To be clear;
My typical HQ :
10x HQ Elements (whatever command limit I set and whatever type it is)
100x Logistics (whatever type again)
25x-50x Bombardment Units
I try not to cross 10k tonnage, while I do this. That's all it is.
-
This is Steve's test unit. I got the idea from here and started to think about it.
I have no clue why Steve made it with 2 HQ elements - minimax is not Steve's style of play, so it can be any sort of roleplay, copying some real OOB or using some game mechanics we are guessing only.
Edit: And did you try to alter the command limit value on element design screen?
Surely I did!
How I can deal with HQ element sizes if I did not?
I think it's again somehow about I confused formations with elements, but again: no, I was about elements from the start.
-
Ok, my all wish was and is well. I just tried to give what I think is a good advice. I still do. Refer my edit in the last post, because I think it clears my stand point. ;)
-
Well, let's count.
A. "This is a suggestion to add 20x full-size HQ elements"
B. "whatever command limit I set and whatever type it is"
C. "If you make two slots HQ unit one of them being bombardment weapons"
We are discussing marine companies, so let's design marine MV HQ+HB, as it mentioned in C., to deal with some marine armours. (Surely not boarding marine, because there is no boarding vehicle in this version of Aurora. It must be drop-purpose marine company with it's HQ formation.)
We get a 88-ton command-and-bombardment vehicle element with 1000 tons (standart company-size) of command capacity.
Let's fill our HQ formation with 20x of those HQ elements for redundancy, as it was proposed at A. - it's 20*88t = 1760 tons for the same 1000-ton command capacity (because, as it was already discussed above, HQ capacity cannot be summed inside the same formation).
This formation cannot apply full command bonus even for itself, to say nothing of subordinate company squads!
Attach 4 25-ton squads (company-sized front line combat force) to it, and any command bonus will drop to 36%, and you'll need also 2.7 times more drop transport capacity to deliver this force.
So, do not try it in home!
B. statement is not effective to this thread's formation size.
Let's try some better case: 4-tier (brigade) force.
It's useless to add redundancy to the upper level, because, as we discussed above, it can be used to transfer superior bonuses only, so no superior level - no redundancy usability.
It's also useless to make company HQ formations, so we'll have only 2 tiers of 20x-redundant HQ formations: regimental (let it be 20k) and battalion (4k) levels.
Let's degign MV+HB HQs.
20k command size - 178-ton MV, 4k command - 98-ton MV.
20x178=3560 ton. That's ok, 17.8% of command size, good commander will compensate this loss.
20x98=1960 ton. That's nearly 50% of command size, and I think no commander will be able to compensate this with their bonus even for full-arrayed subordinate formations. (Front line formations will suffer losses during battle, so it will be even less combat power to deal with by bonuses closer to the end of battle.)
Add some LM and specialized arty to HQ formations, as described above, and your front-line force will be even thinner, less then a third of overall drop force, and their high- and middle-level commanders will have arty bonuses in preference of offence bonuses, to use this huge arty load effectively.
I think it will be cannon-fodder, if you have no divisible tech or mass superiority.
-
Deciding that the 'full-size command unit' must be an 88 ton vehicle rather than a 10 ton basic infantry company HQ and absolutely has to be present in 20 copies is certainly a way one could avoid considering the ideas involved.
-
Deciding that the 'full-size command unit' must be an 88 ton vehicle rather than a 10 ton basic infantry company HQ and absolutely has to be present in 20 copies is certainly a way one could avoid considering the ideas involved.
Sorry, but I'm wondering if you read posts you are answering.
1. I'm not deciding those thing you are mentioning - that's what I quoted from my opponent, not bring from my head! I just combined 3 things, my opponent proposed in this thread, obviously as parts of their common principle of building ground combat forces. I mention and quote it over and over again!
2. My reasons to avoid this idea are not what you mention here. Here I'm critisizing what was proposed with details, not a basic idea of doubling HQ elements. As for doubling HQ elements as basic idea - there was my other posts above, about KIA chances with current mechanics how it's described in corresponding threads. Over and over again, too.
-
Advanced Genetic Enhancement
Boarding Combat
Desert Warfare
Extreme Pressure Combat
Extreme Temperature Combat
High Gravity Combat
Jungle Warfare
Low Gravity Combat
Mountain Warfare
Think twice if you really want all the possible extra training on them. As others said, the cost is multiplying and thus goes up real fast. AGE and BC are of course a must but if you don't intend these to be more than "pathfinder"-type unit on planets/moons then the other stuff is somewhat unnecessary - you don't need combat bonuses for FFD after all and the marines can still defend the FFD-element well enough. With enough Construction Complexes this, of course, becomes less of an issue.
-
I'll try to summarize my view of spare HQ sub-topic.
1. I haven't thoroughly tested relevant game mechanics yet, but from Steve posts (quoted above), there must be no advantage in commander survivability under fire by adding them some spare full-sized HQ elements, because commander KIA chance is determined by their HQ element size. Doubling formation HQ size by adding spare HQ elements of the same size is doubling probability of HQ formation being chosen as target and being hit by deadly fire, and, simultaneously, halving commander's KIA chance by any hit, so 2 x (1/2) = 1x chance multiplier, that is no advantage at all.
1.1. It must be considerable (and even drastic) advantage in commander survivability under fire by adding them midget spare HQs ("command shelters"), though those shelters will not work as effective command infrastructure (commander bonus delivery). If it's exploit - that's a question. It's too cheap, nearly zero cost, but field shelters are not very expensive things. It seems to me as good idea, if you have a home rule to not use them in too much numbers. It can be strong exploit if this "shelter" will provide superior bonuses transition to subordinates, as if it is working combat communications infrastructure instead of cheap tiny shelter.
1.2. To minimize commander's KIA event probability w/o exploits, you have to give them absolutely minimum HQ capability (main HQ element size), that is necessary to provide their full command bonuses to their deployment+subordinate formations. Bigger main HQ element - higher chances of HQ formation being chosen as target. Design main HQ elements as small as it can be without deficit of command capacity to their purposed ground force size. Add command shelters, as described above, if you have no RP objections to this idea, but do no opposing thing: do not expand HQ element capability more than it's necessary to grab your expected force fully. It's even can be good idea to reserve front-line elements (supernumeraries), because they will suffer losses during first phases of battle, and your force size will drop to smth like mean size at HQ capability volume. It can be effective doctrine to count on mean force size during battle, not fresh-and-untouched one, that will be so in ideal circumstances only.
1.3. Don't forget to click "Avoid Combat" checkbox for all HQ elements - it's decreasing chances of being chosen as target greatly, with no described harm to command abilities. I haven't tested if "Avoid Combat" is halving arty's effectiveness, as described in Steve post generally (without mentioning support fire), but if it is - arty components still have their halved effect, so use them in HQ elements if you have no desire to reserve secondary vehicle sockets for AA/FFD/CE components.) I haven't tested too, if opening support or AA fire disables "avoid-combat" status for this element during this combat phase (it will be realistic, but Steve haven't described it, so it can be little exploit).
2. Multiple full-sized spare HQs, being questionally-effective as commander's preservation measure, will be tonnage-coslty inversely proportionally (non-linear) to your force size.
2.1. For topic-starter's force sizes (Marine Company to some temporary composite battalion, combined from several such companies) proposed 20x or even 10x are very costly, it will be thinning front-line segment of you force greatly, that's very bad idea. 2x spare infantry HQs can be used in this level without considerable drop in combat effectiveness.
2.2 For regiment to brigade-size (20 to 100k) 3- or 4-tier overall forces, multiple full-sized spare HQs in upper and middle tiers are not so much tonnage-costly, though very questionally-effective even with very good commanders, if there will be any positive effect at all. 2x spare HQ elements, even vehicle ones, can be used in this level without considerable drop in combat effectiveness.
2.3. For large divisional to army sizes, upper-level HQ multiple redundancy can be nigh-negligable in terms of tonnage saving.
2.4 If HQ redundancy mechanics will work as intended, it's higher-level better tonnage-costs must be considered with caution, because higher-tier commander bonuses will affect combat troops an masse with lesser bonus transition multipliers.
-
1. I haven't thoroughly tested relevant game mechanics yet
Others have, so you are arguing your theory against practical experience... Guess which one wins 99/100 times?
-
...
We get a 88-ton command-and-bombardment vehicle element with 1000 tons (standart company-size) of command capacity.
Let's fill our HQ formation with 20x of those HQ elements for redundancy, as it was proposed at A. - it's 20*88t = 1760 tons for the same 1000-ton command capacity (because, as it was already discussed above, HQ capacity cannot be summed inside the same formation).
This formation cannot apply full command bonus even for itself, to say nothing of subordinate company squads!
Attach 4 25-ton squads (company-sized front line combat force) to it, and any command bonus will drop to 36%, and you'll need also 2.7 times more drop transport capacity to deliver this force.
...
I really don't get your math on this. Maybe it's me having difficulties in these quarantine times.
If I make HQ elements out of MVs, I adjust my weight accordingly because as I stated I don't want to cross 10k line. Plus I never ever use 1000 command limit HQs in my formations. Minimum command limit of my smallest group is 40k. So how do you get those ideas even I gave you the details?
And I sincerely want to know what is your grouping? What weight do you use? If I know that, maybe I can see the reason behind what you are telling?
Edit: I read through all posts. Don't get the wrong idea, this HQ concept applies to brigade and above main HQs, not to subordinate HQs. Your math was implying that you think I put all these spare HQs to active combatant formations. No, no. That's why that is not hindering our combat capacity.
-
1. I haven't thoroughly tested relevant game mechanics yet
Others have, so you are arguing your theory against practical experience... Guess which one wins 99/100 times?
I cannot tell how you tested it, and if I say I haven't tested it thoroughly - it does not mean, that I haven't tested some HQ redundancy at all.
But I repeated some series of test battles now, with v1.9.5 and 10x HQ redundancy, and my opinion isn't changed yet:
My regimental force with 1x HQ element in HQ formations are winning battles confidently, opposed by the same tech formations with the same orders (meeting engagement, HQ+Arty in support of front-line units), that have only one difference: OPFOR regiment have 10x MVHQ with additional arty, when my BLUEFOR regiment have only RP-reasoned small guard squads in it, in addition to 1xHQ and several LM elements (OPFOR have more units with more LMs, because they used more LM with their additional arty, so I leaved my regiment 15% under-arrayed to give it no big advantage).
In the end of battle, I have - repeatedly - intact 1x HQ element of my regiment (it's being hit very rarely even after enemy breakthroughs, the only time force commander was KIA - there was complete annihilation of my force due to logistical collapse; HQ element was destroyed standing as the last of it's force at all), 1/3 to 2/3 of my front line troops usually survived, OPFOR front-line segment annihilated and OPFOR 10x-redundancy HQ elements halved or destroyed (by breakthroughs usually, by the logs). In the midtime of combat I have a look at this redundancy HQ - those being hit with arty quite frequently even before breakthroughs, but I cannot make proper stats by such quick tests.
-
P.S. Commanders frequently survived their only HQ element destruction events. I have no clue if it's WAI or bug.
-
Making HQ elements non-combat is a big factor in protecting them. While putting arty in the mix and putting them on the support is riskier. I think the benefit is in such a main HQ comes from spare HQ elements. In such HQ, although their numbers are more than one, relative size of total HQ elements is smaller than arty or log components.
The other option is making said HQ with all non-combat elements which I do higher in the command chain and putting them rear of your forces. With more HQ elements -again relatively small in their group, their chance of getting wiped out drops considerably. It obviously depends on if you are on the offansive or defending and bunch of other factors like fortification and terrain features in which planet combat takes place.
-
P.S. Commanders frequently survived their only HQ element destruction events. I have no clue if it's WAI or bug.
WAI, but no HQ and no bonuses at all.